If those 5 things are aspects of a society that help prevent war, and the prevention of war is a good thing, then...

What about porn?

You could make the case that a society with copious amount of porn and a voracious appetite for its consumption is less aggressive.

Or, in light of John Hogan's comment about his use of psychedelic drugs, what about marijuana?

But I agree with you, Althouse, that we can't control what happens in other countries and our efforts in this regard need to be convert. So go encourage the world to surf porn and smoke some joints... for the good of humanity and for the well-being of your country!

All you need to do is read blogs and see the nature of anonymous comments to know that WAR (the human trait that leads to war) is very much with us - it lurks beneath the surface and it is unlikely that anyone, woman or not, can change that.

And, if they could, in this nation, while it would be wonderful and amazing, it means nothing unless you can bring the rest of the world (especially right now the Muslim nations) along with you.

What 9/11 taught us is, as we blissfully looked forward to a world without war after the wall came down, others are fully at war with us and bent on our destruction.

Yes! Women and men. Women probably see the need better, but plenty of men can see as well.

There are two things that have changed in the last century: 1. women's rights. That's bigger than, perhaps, is understood. Women used to be considered chattel. Now in many countries women have full equality - different but equal . 2. longevity - in 1900 life expectancy was 47 years! Now the fastest growing demographic is those over 85!

There are enough people who, as they age, become wiser and more loving to make a difference that, again, is probably not understood.

War is cruel and destructive. It will be harder and harder to justify - especially wars of choice when the safety and security of the people is not in real jeopardy...and especially as more and mroe people see that war isn't really working.

If you're talking about Iraq, then you've disqualified yourself from having any opinion that even touches on the topic of war.

when the safety and security of the people is not in real jeopardy

There are too many people who cant see past 3 moves on a chess board. And it doesn't stop them from declaring themselves experts re whether our safety and security is in jeopardy.

Whats the old joke? Your car is stranded on the side of the road. A conservative will know how to fix your engine but wont stop for you. A liberal will stop for you and, in the process of "fixing" your engine, will blow up your car.

I always get a chuckle when Obama uses his "car in a ditch" metaphor. Bush may have driven it off the road, but Obama's the one who's blowing it up.

and especially as more and more people see that war isn't really working.

Those people are usually known as "conquered subjects".

[...]

Just for fun: what would you be willing to trade for peace with Islam? Because if you are really serious about "Giving Peace A Chance", all you have to do is convert to their religion.

Early in its history, back in the days of pre-Republic Kings, the new women of Rome stepped in to put an end to some fighting. And it worked-- the fighting stopped.

Of course, the Sabine women who did this were "raped" first. Or that's what people say now about it anyway. The definition of "rape" was much looser back then; abducting women for marriage because your city didn't have enough was not an unusual practice.

Women are all grudge all the time, not seeking out the necessary altercations that clear things up."

I think that this is profoundly true, and I think it's based in biology.

Women are no less violent than men but they are tied to the care of children by the realities of mammalian reproduction. This doesn't make them peaceful, it makes them the last line of defense and by necessity that many times more vicious.

They are also physically smaller, which means that posturing and chest beating to resolve a conflict as two males might decide who is bigger and who gives up with only that symbolic fight isn't a dynamic that applies women. Letting the enemy go home again and risk a future confrontation is not a dynamic that applies to women. Guile and scorched earth is *rational* when you're smaller.

The fantasy that women are not warlike is a comfortable fantasy for everyone.

Men can imagine the nicest thoughts about the women they protect, and if all goes well no one needs to know any different because the enemy is stopped long before it becomes an issue. They can imagine a gentle being that isn't touched by the horror in the world, and perhaps that provides a sort of conceptual harbor for the men to believe in for themselves when they've been at war.

And women seem particularly enamored of the notion that they're somehow morally superior to men.

"Can women put an end to war?” Do you mean like Catherine the Great, Elizabeth the First, Golda Meier and Margaret Thatcher? Women don’t like to fight, but when they fight they go all out. I would have voted for Hillary is she had made the nomination. I probably would not have agreed with anything she did domestically, but I am sure that by now, she would have whacked a few international pee-pees that needed whacking. Most Americans are not afraid of a strong woman—if she’s on our side.